Zionist Conspiracy

Part of the Global Plot to Expose Moonbats, conspiracy nuts, and anti-Semites, especially the Jewish anti-Semitic variety.
The leftwing Neo-Nazi web magazine Counterpunch has described Plaut thus: "One of the most pernicious writers is Steven Plaut, a man who could be thought of as Israel's Daniel Pipes."

Friday, March 30, 2007

A Passover Story

A Passover Story

By Steven Plaut

Once upon a time, somewhere in the steppes of Eastern Europe, in thePale that contained many a Jewish village or stedtel, there roamed twobeggars. One of these hoboes was Jewish and the other a gentile. The twotransients were friends and far too lazy to hold any real job or to do anywork. So they wondered carefree, aimlessly and uselessly from village tovillage, begging for food, sometimes collecting discarded things to sell,here and there stealing some eggs or fruits off farm trees. It was a hardlife and they often found themselves on the brink of starvation.

One day the two were looking for someone from whom they could "shnorr"some food when they came upon a Jewish village, a stedtel, whose residentswere all buzzing about, hurrying, scouring pots and pans, cleaning theirhomes and cooking. The Jewish beggar suddenly realized that it was but afew hours before Passover was to begin. "We have extraordinary good lucktoday," he said to his gentile comrade. "Tonight begins Passover, a Jewishholiday. Indeed, it is in many ways the happiest holiday of the year, withmountains of food and drink. So here is my plan. Let us come into thevillage just before evening. We will stand in the back of the synagogue.We will tell them that you and I are both Jewish wanderers, far from home,traveling to do some trading and seek our fortunes. And the local Jews willinvite us to the most wonderful banquet of our lives!"

His gentile comrade agreed to the plan. They entered the villagetowards sunset and stood in the back of the "shul". And just as the Jewishbeggar had predicted, the plan went off like clockwork. The locals competedwith one another to see who would have the honor of hosting one of thebeggars at his own Passover seder. In the end, two families were selected.After the evening prayers, the Jewish beggar went off to feast with onefamily, while his gentile friend, pretending to be Jewish, went off to dineand celebrate with another family.

The gentile beggar's mouth was already watering with the thought of thewonderful delicacies he was about to devour. His belly was grumbling withanticipation. But things were not going the way he had expected.

His hosts ushered him into a chair at a large table, set with candlesand many empty dishes. In the center, however, he saw nothing but somepathetic hard boiled eggs, a few leaves, and a single small shank bone ofmeat. "This for the entire assembly?" he thought. Then, instead ofpouncing on the food, his host poured everyone a single cup of wine, but asmall one. The beggar guest would have preferred a large bottle of vodka ora barrel of gin or even some German beer.

But things just got worse. His hosts finished drinking their smallglasses of wine and then offered everyone at the table a few small leaves tonibble. Not even enough to satisfy a rabbit! And they even insisted thathe dip these into an awful salty solution, which only made him more thirstyand desperate to drink some real grog. Then to celebrate this "meal", theybroke into song and laughter, which went on for a whole hour.

When he was expecting them to serve him his dessert, they handed himinstead a piece of bread, but not one like anything he had ever seen before.It was dry, evidently having been left out in the sun for a week, and barelyresembled real bread. It was hard and it crackled when he chewed on it.Moreover it was served plain, with no oil or molasses or fat. "This is thefeast my friend promised me?" thought the beggar to himself. This is themountain of food these Jews eat to celebrate their happiest holiday?

And then just imagine his horror at what came next. Each of thepeople at the table was given the most bitter and disgusting glob ofhorseradish, something he would never ordinarily eat even if he werefamished. They even blessed God when they swallowed that horrid-smellingand evil-tasting slop!

Convinced the "meal" was over, the beggar excused himself, said he wasneeded elsewhere with great urgency, and left his hosts with an apology. Hethen wandered the streets of the village, looking for his Jewish beggarmate, preparing to thrash him in rage and scream at him for his emptypromise of a full stomach and a glorious meal.

It was only four hours later that he found his Jewish friend. TheJewish beggar was wandering through the alleys, his shirt buttons popping,his belly overfull, picking at his teeth, belching his pleasure. He was sofull of food that he could only walk along at a relaxed pace, humming tohimself with pleasure. His gentile friend was so weak with hunger that hewas unable even to pummel his friend. The Jewish beggar examined hisstarving comrade with surprise. "What happened?" he asked. "Some feast youpromised me!" said the other. And then he told the Jewish beggar what hadhappened, how his hosts had offered him a thimble of wine, less than ahandful of pathetic leaves in brine, a stale piece of bread of some sortwith nothing on it, and - In the names of all Saints - some horrid bitterglob. "At that point I decided enough is enough," he explained, "and I gotup and left."

The Jewish beggar could not control his laughter. You do notunderstand, he explained. Those were simply the earliest preliminaries ofthe feast. You have snatched hunger from out of the horn of cornucopia!Had you stuck things out for just a few more minutes, you would have beenserved the most sumptuous feast of your life, a meal for kings, food thatwould have sufficed you for a whole week of wanderings. There would havebeen more food than you could eat, fish, eggs, meat, delights you can onlyimagine, along with wine and drink. But you see, you abandoned hope only afew moments too soon. Had you just a little more patience anddetermination, you would have a belly filled to bursting. It would havebeen one of the happiest nights of you life. Because you were impatient,you spoiled everything."

* * * * ** *

The story of the two beggars is not a fairy tale nor a goodnightfantasy for children. The gentile beggar in the story, the one who spoiledeverything because of his own ignorance and impatience, is the state ofIsrael. Like the gentile beggar who did not understand where he was norwhat was going on, like the fool who misunderstood the preliminaries as theentire meal, the state of Israel was on the verge of entering the mostwonderful, prosperous and liberated period of its existence in the early1990s. Had it listened to the Jewish beggar, all would have been well.Had it found patience and stamina to stick things out for just a littlelonger, it would have achieved its deepest desires and fulfilled itsstrongest yearnings.

By 1990, the "first Palestinian intifada" had been defeated, suppressedby force of Israeli arms. The dimensions of Palestinian violence weredropping each month. It would likely have been ended altogether had Israelused more vigorous force against it. Those Israelis saying they thoughtIsrael should use MORE force to end the violence outnumbered those sayingless force should be used by perhaps four to one. It was a near-consensus.Israelis were in no mood to appease or capitulate.

The intifada violence that had begun in the late 1980`s had peteredout, with fewer and fewer incidents of violence by the month and with theterrorists so desperate for weapons that they were concocting zip guns outof household materials and Molotov cocktails, far more likely to scorch thethrowers than any targets. The best that the terrorists could do in mostcases was to toss rocks at Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip or in parts ofthe West Bank, a phenomenon that was unpleasant, but not life-threatening,and certainly was no existential threat to the entire country. Other partsof the West Bank were fairly tranquil, including Bethlehem and Jericho.Jews could walk or ride in security in many parts of the "occupiedterritories" and in all of Israel.

The leaders of the Palestinian terrorists were off in distant Tunis,with a few others in Damascus, places from which they could do little morethan pout and bluster. The world -- or at least the United States -- hadmade its peace with the Israeli position that the PLO was not an acceptablepartner in any Arab-Israeli peace talks and that the most that PalestinianArabs could hope for would be a limited autonomy, with no role whatsoeverfor the PLO. There was enormous support in the United States, and in partsof Europe, for Israel's position that limited autonomy without the PLO wasmore than generous and the best for which the Palestinians could hope, afair and just solution. Even the Egyptians were formally on board behindthat program. The Jordanian border was tranquil and the impoverishedSyrians afraid to risk any confrontations. Sure, the world belly-achedwhen Israel used force to suppress the rioters and rock-throwers. But -within Israel - there was near-consensus that the cause for the rockthrowing and Palestinian hooliganism was the use of insufficient force bythe Israeli army, not Israeli "war crimes" and brutality.

Few took seriously the notion that Palestinians were a "people"deserving of their own state. Israelis were willing to treat them as thePalestinian branch of the Arab people, entitled perhaps to control their ownlives and conduct their own local affairs - in exchange for foreswearingviolence, and this was a formula backed by the United States. While a fewdemagogues in the US spoke about a Palestinian "state" and "people", thiswas not the American official position. Calls for "self-determination" forPalestinians were something usually restricted to the Third World dictatorsor the anti-American leftist extremists in the West. Israelis themselveswere in near-consensus that Palestinian "statehood" was a nonstarter, andthat limited autonomy for Palestinians alongside Jewish settlement of theWest Bank and Gaza were the only plausible long-term peace strategy.

Things became even more encouraging when the United States trouncedIraq, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. Israel had earned American gratitudeand support for its own interests by sitting tight and turning the nationalcheek when Saddam hurled his SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv. Americans wereangry at Arab aggressors and looking to kick Arab fascist butt. The PLO hadlost any residual sympathy it might have had in the United States and partsof Europe when it chose to play the role of cheerleader for Saddam'saggression against Kuwait. The Israeli public still had fresh memories ofthe Palestinians dancing on their roofs when Saddam's SCUDs fell, and therewere very few in Israel who were willing to listen to anything about"Palestinian rights". After their behavior in the Gulf War, even a head ofthe semi-Marxist Meretz party stated that the Palestinians could go getstuffed. There was virtually no sympathy for the idea of making any further"goodwill gestures" to the Palestinian barbarians who had danced in glee andscreamed, "Saddam, Saddam, Incinerate Tel Aviv."

In the early 1990s, the Israeli economy was booming, riding the crestof the high-tech revolution. The country was being flooded with immigrantsfrom the countries that had comprised the Soviet empire. They were arrivingwith their economic drive, their advanced degrees and skills, together withothers from Argentina and France. The standard of living in Israel hadreached the levels of the middle tier of Western European countries.Israelis enjoyed their Scandinavian-style welfare benefits, theiralmost-free medicine, their world-class universities. While many IsraeliArabs voted for the anti-Zionist Stalinist Party to show their contempt fortheir own country and their solidarity with its enemies, many others did notand voted for the Zionist parties, maintaining cordial relations with Jews.Tourism was recovering, as the intifada violence was suppressed. Even theweather cooperated, with some wet winters, and the Sea of Galilee even burstits banks, full of water.

And into this near-pastoral tranquility burst the Oslo ``peaceprocess", led by the ignorant beggar who did not understand that thegreatest of feasts was nigh. Oslo was based on the proposition thateconomic interests and consumerism had replaced military power as thedeterminants of international relations in the post-modern world. It soughtto reduce tensions with the Palestinian Arabs, who had just been defeated intheir intifada, by importing the PLO`s leadership from Tunis and Damascusinto the ``occupied territories`` and then allowing it to arm itself andbuild up an army in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, bankrolled andarmed by Israel itself. Like the beggar who snatched starvation from thejaws of plentitude, the Israeli government of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peressucceeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They turned thenear-tranquil Israel of the early 1990s into the Shadow of the Valley ofDeath.

Peres and Rabin became convinced that the most promising path towardspeace was Israeli capitulation to Arab demands and appeasement of theplanet's worst Islamofascist terrorists. Peres and Rabin lectured thecountry about how there was not peace because the Israelis were not stronglydesirous enough of it. They believed that the best strategy for achievingMiddle East peace was to flood Israel with billboards and bumper stickersabout how nice peace is and how nasty war is. The Israel Left used itscontrol of the government and mass media to attack the Israeli soul andmorale, hectoring Israelis about their "insensitivity" to the Palestinian"Other".

The PLO was invited into the outskirts of Israel's main cities. It setup an army of tens of thousands of soldiers, now controlled by the Hamas,possessing anti-aircraft missiles that threaten Israeli civilian andmilitary air traffic, and a system of police-state control over thePalestinian population. The Palestinian stormtroopers possess anti-tankweapons, Katyusha rockets, and al-Kassem rocket factories. The Gaza Stripis today a large mortar and rocket factory. The goodwill measures of Israelproduced a campaign of Nazi-like hatred led by the Palestinian Authority,down to and including virulent Holocaust denial accompanied by Holocaustjustification (never mind the contradiction).

Oslo was based on the proposition that armies are obsolete and so alsois patriotism, that appeasement of fascist terrorists is the surest path totrue peace, that Israeli self-abasement is the highest form of patriotism,that cowardice is the highest form of valor, that the best way to end war isto pretend it does not exist. The Rabin-Peres government adopted as itsmantra that old Peter and Gordon song, "I don't care what they say, I won'tstay in a world without love." Peres and Beilin decided that if reality isugly and tough, the solution is to live in fantasy. They refused to live ina reality in which war is present and where people can not solve theirconflicts through building tourist hotels and internet web services.

Years into the ``peace process,`` Prime Minister Ehud Barak was readyto hand over to the PLO the Old City of Jerusalem, including control overthe Western Wall, in addition to slabs of pre-1967 Israeli territory in theNegev -- all this while the Palestinians were routinely murdering Jewishcivilians, many of them children. The PLO`s response to Barak'sobsequiousness was to launch a new war against Israel in the form of the"Al-Aqsa intifada".

The Oslo era was accompanied by a massive assault upon Israel`s pride,morale and confidence by its own leaders and intellectual elites. Israeliintellectuals lectured the country about its original sinfulness. Israelwas flooded with ``New Historians`` and ``Post-Zionists`` who zealously setabout the task of rewriting history texts and school curricula to promotethe Arab ``narrative`` -- i.e. the false Arab version of history. Largeswaths of Israeli universities became the occupied territories of tenuredtraitors, working for the enemy, seeking the destruction of their owncountry.

Israeli politicians, ever attentive to the zeitgeist of trendysecularism, announced themselves ready to strip the country of all of itsJewish national emblems, from the star on the flag to the words of thenational anthem. And, after 1,300 years of discrimination against Jews byArabs, Israeli politicians were implementing ``reverse discrimination``programs, under which Arabs received preferences and Jews suffered fromquotas.

One after the other, Israeli politicians mouthed the post-modernistgibberish of the anti-Israel choruses from overseas -- how Israelis need tostop ruling over another "people", how they have to learn to understand the"Other," how they must bring themselves to commemorate the ``tragedies`` theJews had imposed upon the Arabs and make restitution. The Israeli publicschool system was conscripted to proliferate Arab ideology. Israelipoliticians and leftist professors seriously proposed that Israel create aNational ``Naqba`` Day, in which it atone for the very fact of its creationand the ``catastrophe`` that this creation caused to Israeli Arabs.

The Israeli media bludgeoned the country on a daily basis, promotingPalestinian propaganda in editorials, Op-Ed columns and even ostensiblyobjective news stories. This Israeli self-flagellation produced a situationwhereby each and every atrocity committed by Arabs was greeted with callsfrom the Israeli chattering classes for further concessions and appeasementsby Israel. Some, including tenured extremists at the universities, went sofar as to justify and celebrate Arab acts of terror as necessary to forceIsraelis to come to their senses and make peace on terms favored by theseextremists. The Left promoted insubordination and mutiny by soldiers in themilitary, and some endorsed boycotts of Israel by overseas anti-Semites.The Israeli press adopted the practice of overseas Israel-Bashers inreferring to Palestinian nazi terrorists and suicide bombers as "activistsand militants".

For 15 years the Israeli elites lived in a make-pretend world, in whichJews were to blame for everything and Arabs were merely expressing``frustration`` at being ``mistreated`` for so many years by Jews. Thepsychological war by Israel`s elites against national pride, dignity andself-respect -- indeed against national existence -- was accompanied by aset of diplomatic policies expressing little more than self-loathing.

Israel was pursuing a policy that in effect let no act of Arabviolence go unrewarded. Ehud Barak surrendered to terror and withdrewIsraeli troops from Lebanon, and in so doing placed all of northern Israel,the Haifa Bay and its refineries within rocket range of Hizbullah. Syria,despite decades of aggression, sponsorship of terrorism andgovernment-sanctioned Holocaust denial, was begged by the same Barak to takeback not just the Golan Heights but also parts of pre-1967 Israel withaccess to the waters of the Sea of Galilee. Miraculously, Syria turned downthe suicidal offer. The Israeli national policy of self-abasement wasaccepted with equanimity by much of the Israeli public, which hoped againsthope that its leaders` promises of a light at the end of the Oslo tunnelwould come to pass. There was no light, other than from the flashes ofexploding buses full of children.

The 1990`s were the era in which it became evident that a great manyIsraelis and most of the Israeli elite had lost their will to survive as anation. After centuries in which Jews maintained the most militant sorts ofpride and self-assurance even while being mistreated, despised andhumiliated, here were the Israelis, possessing one of the great armies ofthe world, abandoning all pride and explicitly promoting self-humiliationand self-destruction. The same Israeli military that had rescued theJewish hostages in Entebbe was suddenly incapable of rescuing a wounded IDFsoldier bleeding to death in Joseph`s Tomb in Nablus or protecting childrenunder fire in Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Here was an Israel unwilling to use force to prevent Palestinians fromfiring rifles and mortars into civilian homes, instead begging thePalestinian Authority to hold talks with those doing the shooting in orderto ``work out differences and reach understandings.``

An Israel no more than two generations removed from the Holocaust waswilling to hold ``peace talks`` with people who denied there ever was aHolocaust and who insist that Jews use the blood of gentile children to makePassover matzos. The same Jewish people that had fought against enormousodds and won in 1948 was acquiescing in a ``peace process`` that involvedunilateral peace gestures from Israel in exchange for the Arabs continuingto make war against the Jews.

Israel's leaders were given a very clear choice in the early 1990s.They could have followed the lead of the Jewish beggar, hold back theirappetites for just a bit longer and defer their gratification just a bit,suppressing the residual of Palestinian violence and denazifying the WestBank and Gaza. And then they would have enjoyed a sumptuous Passover feastlike none before it. But they chose to behave like the foolish gentilebeggar in the story who had no idea of what was going on, who let his hungerget the best of him, and who stormed out of the feast in irritation, justbefore the delights of the feast were to begin in earnest. Because ofIsraeli frustration at Palestinian guttersnipes tossing rocks at Israelitroops, Israel swapped them for suicide bombers exterminating hundreds ofJewish children and other civilians in Jerusalem and Haifa.

Is the foolish beggar still with us? That impatient one who does notunderstand the rules of the seder? The one who is unwilling to control hishunger pangs for just a little longer? Can we bring back the Jewish beggarwho correctly understands the rituals of the seder and understands Jewishheritage, who knows how to wait patiently and achieve the delightful bloatedbelly of satisfaction and prosperity?

I search, but do not find him anywhere. I do not know where he hasgone.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The Golden Reign of President Tibi the First

The following is taken from Chapter 12 from the 10th grade history textbook in use in the United Federation of Palestine, copyright 2013.***********************************************

It was back in the glorious year of 2007, which was exactly 1429 years since the Hijra, when Ahmad Tibi became President of Israel. That auspicious development took place under some unusual arrangements in Israel regarding the role and functioning of the President of the Jewish state. Moshe Katsav had been President for some time when he was forced to step down, due to his being indicted for sexual misconduct. Under those circumstances, Israeli law declared that the Chairperson of the Knesset assumes the position of Acting President in Israel. In the case of the Katsav deposal, the Chairperson of the Knesset was Dahlia Itzik from the Israeli Labor Party, who immediately assumed the mantel of Acting President.

Now under the rules governing the acting presidency, Itzik served as Acting President for only as long as she was in the country and was physically capable of fulfilling the presidential duties.

Things began to unravel when Itzik decided to attend a professional conference on the educational merits of cosmetics, held in the Cayman Islands, those very same islands in which so many Israeli politicians kept their bank accounts back then. While she was basking in the Caribbean sun, Itzik turned over the reins of the presidency to the deputy chairperson of the Knesset, according to the operating rules for such an event. And that is how Ahmad Tibi, the Deputy Chair of the Knesset, became the Acting President of Israel in late 2007.

Tibi, unlike Katsav and most of the previous presidents of Israel, was determined not to serve as a mere figurehead and butt of mockery heading a powerless presidency. Tibi decided to harness the powers of clemency granted to the President under Israeli law in order to promote his political agenda.

That agenda of course was Israel's complete dismemberment and annihilation. But President Ahmad Tibi was willing to restrain himself and act cautiously and wisely.

His first order of business was to prevent the return to Israel of Dahlia Itzik, which would have required that he turn back over to her the President's Mansion in Jerusalem and the presidential powers. To prevent that tragedy, he began a process of negotiation with all Labor Party politicians facing impending indictment or imprisonment. He offered to grant them blanket clemency in exchange for their voting to remove Itzik from her position in the party and for ordering her to resign as Knesset Chairperson. At the same time, Itzik's cooperation was assured when a number of Hollywood ex-Israelis in the entertainment business made Itzik a fabulously attractive offer to begin starring in films.

Having dealt with the immediate threat of being forced out of the Presidency by Itzik, President Tibi then approached the Likud politicians facing imminent indictment and imprisonment. He promised all of these blanket clemency in exchange for stripping Katsav of his residual claims on the presidency and for conferring them formally and permanently upon Tibi himself. Hence, President Tibi was no longer merely the Acting President, but was the actual ninth president of the sovereign state of Israel.

President Tibi invited representatives of the Hamas and the Islamic movement of northern Israel to the President's mansion to help him celebrate his successful appointment. The gala celebration lasted 4 days. Because the kosher cooking staff had been evicted from the mansion, the Israeli Labor Party and Meretz were the only Zionist Knesset factions to send representatives to the festivities.

Once the place was cleaned up, President Tibi could get down to serious business. He approached the major political factions in the Knesset. Playing one off against the other, he threatened each party to retract his previous promise to grant clemency to party members facing imminent indictment and imprisonment, but would reconsider and restore his previous pledge as long as they assisted him in imposing his political vision and agenda on the country.

Of course President Tibi was too clever to attempt all at once to bring about the dismemberment and abolition of the Jewish state. Instead, using his powers of clemency as the whip to keep the ornery politicians in line, Tibi introduced new government decisions one at a time, in a sort of salami tactic.

The first step was to make sure that Israel would not re-conquer the Gaza Strip and drive out the Qassam rocket crews. So President Tibi introduced the New Gaza Policy, under which Israel would exercise self-restraint and respond to barrages of rockets or teams of suicide bombers entering from Gaza with passive restraint and turning the other cheek. After each attack, the country would simply call for more talks with the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also do absolutely nothing against the operation of countless smuggling tunnels into Gaza from Egypt.

Next, the government under the guidance behind the scenes of President Tibi changed its Lebanon policy. Israel announced that in the event of Katyusha attacks on northern Israel, the most that Israel would do in response would be to bomb some empty buildings inside Lebanon. Israel would decidedly NOT send in any ground troops. It would also express willingness to negotiate the disputed Shabaa Farms territory.

After this, the new government, obeying its puppet-master President Tibi, agreed that it would reward all Arab terrorist groups that manage to kidnap Israelis by turning over to them hundreds of imprisoned Palestinian terrorists. All the past squeamishness about "terrorists with blood on their hands" was of course forgotten. Israel agreed to free hundreds of imprisoned terrorists even when the kidnapped Israelis in question had been murdered in cold blood during captivity.

That accomplished, the Tibi government began an initiative for a repeat implementation of the ideas behind the Gaza "redeployment" in the West Bank. The government announced that it was willing to cooperate with the Saudi "Road Map" master plan, as well as with the outline for peace prepared by the "Quartet". It accepted the Mecca arrangement by which the Fat'h and the Hamas shared power in a government that refused to recognize Israel, and Israel would immediately open talks with its representatives.

President Tibi was well along in his plans to abolish Israel when the most amazing development of all took place. The Kadima faction in the Knesset, led by Ehud Olmert himself, approached President Tibi with an official protest. "Everything you have done so far - the New Gaza Policy, the new policy of restraint regarding the Hizbollah, the redeployment initiative for the West Bank, the wholesale release of imprisoned terrorists . ALL these are really OUR policies and OUR ideas. We are outraged!"

President Tibi, being a modest and restrained sort of person, listened to the complaints from the Olmerites from Kadima and took them all under consideration. Rather than slapping Kadima down and dismissing its members for their impudence, threatening to revoke his pledge of clemency for all Kadima members facing imminent imprisonment and indictment, President Tibi chose the path of accommodation and compromise.

"Here is what I suggest," responded President Tibi to the Kadima complaint. "Rather than quibble over who deserves credit for all these wonderful policies and strategies, let us simply combine forces and work for our joint goals together!"

And that was when Kadima and the Raam-Taal party decided to merge to form one single umbrella political faction, calling itself "Raadima", although the press dubbed them the "Tiberts". The Tiberts recruited new members from among Arabs and Jews from across the political spectrum. Its platform and visions appealed to many politicians from the Likud and the Labor Party. Meretz refused to join because the Raadima party did not promise an immediate return to the 1947, one without any negotiations.

The Raadima faction swept the next elections and formed a government coalition capable of implementing its peace plan at last. And that is how Israel ceased to exist and was replaced by the United Federation of Palestine, with capital in al-Quds.

For the history of the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Haifa, Tel Aviv and Beer Sheba, see the next chapter in this textbook.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

A Choir Performance about Terrorism

The National Post of Canada, ever vigilant to report about political correctness atrocities north of the border, reports this week that the Victoria Philharmonic Choir will be performing a new work showing the Biblical Judge Samson as a suicide-bombing murdering terrorist, similar to those Palestinian terrorists so beloved by the PC crowds. The National Post reports:

"Simon Capet, music director of the Victoria Philharmonic Choir, says he wanted to update Handel's Samson oratorio to be relevant to today's audiences by drawing comparisons to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East."University of Victoria's view of Biblical Judge:

A pro-terror moonbette, the philosophy professor Shadia Drury, recently compared Samson to World Trade Center bomber Mohammed Atta in a talk at the University of Victoria, claiming that the Jews in the Bible invented terrorism. Andrew Rippin, dean of humanities at the University of Victoria and a specialist in Islamic studies, seems to concur.

I mean, Samson as long-haired vigilante bashing the rival gang members, that I could see. But ironically, the Canadian moonbats attacking Samson are simply recasting themselves as Philistines. But in order to know that, they would have had to read the Bible.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arafat would pursue peace.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Hamas would be more of a threat to the PLO than to Israel.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arafat would fight the Hamas and Islamic Jihad "with no Supreme Court or 'Betselem'" (in Rabin's immortal words).But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that terrorism would decrease.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that hostility to Jews in the Arab and the Western media would decrease.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that trade between Israel and Arab countries would flourish.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would be disarmed.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO would cooperate strategically with the Israel Defense Forces.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that there would be an economic peace dividend.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Israeli Arabs would demonstrate increasing moderation due to the "peace process".But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Hamas and Jihad would be persecuted and suppressed by the PLO.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that PLO arms would never again be used against Jews.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO leadership would speak in terms of peace with the Jews.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO would denounce and renounce anti-Semitism.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO would encourage normalization and daily peaceful commerce between Arabs and Jews.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would be forced to spend all its energies on resolving domestic social and economic problems.But they were ever so wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would have so many internal troubles that it would not have the time or ability to pursue confrontation with Israel.G-d, but they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the US would back Israel if the PLO reneged on its obligations or displayed duplicity.What a joke, they were so wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the US would cease to pressure Israel to endanger its security and fundamental interests.But they were mega-wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Europeans would rush forward to support Israel.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Japanese and Saudis would pour money into regional investments, including into Israel.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Egyptians would end all animosity towards Israel, Zionism and Jews.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the non-Arab Moslem countries would gush friendship for Israel.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arab military expenditure would drop significantly.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arab verbal threats against Israel would end.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Nazi-like propaganda in Arab countries would end.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Israeli Left would lead the retreat from the Oslo experiment it if proved to be not working.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would never behave as a tin cup Third-World kleptocracy if granted power.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Jews remaining in Moslem countries would see their treatment dramatically improved.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that liberals and leftists around the world would congratulate Israel for taking risks for peace and rush forward with goodwill and support.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the majority of Palestinians would denounce all violence and terror.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Israeli Arabs would exhibit moderation and increasing loyalty to the state of Israel.But they were wrong.When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Palestinian chants of "Death to the Jews" and "Massacre the Jews" would end.But they were wrong.

Dayenu. Any one of these errors in judgment should have been enough to end the career of a politician in a normal country, possibly even enough to indict that politician and imprison him or her. But in Israel? The politicians prepare for negotiations on the Saudi Plan and prepare for new unilateral withdrawals from Judea and Samaria.Dayenu.

I am afraid I have some bad news for all you Tikkun fellas and gals out there. It seems that there is some fear that your marijuana counts as hametz because it contains kitniyot. According, you may have to get rid of it before the holiday or sell it back to your supplier (but not at a profit because that would amount to earning prohibited neshech interest on the funds you had on deposit).

According to the Jerusalem Post this week, six rabbis in Israel were interviewed about this cosmic issue. The conclusion?

As Rabbi Daniel Kohn of Bat Ayin explained, the issue ultimately boils down to an individual decision by each rabbi about whether hemp seeds themselves could be considered edible. If a rabbi decides that the seeds are edible, then hemp - and, by extension, marijuana - would not be considered permissible for Pessah. Israel's Green Leaf Party ("Aleh Yarok") said it was not taking any chances. Following an inquiry by the Post, a spokeswoman for the party said the group was sending out an e-mail to members warning them about hemp's possible kashrut problems.The pro-marijuana Green Leaf Party by the way has no Knesset parliamentary reps. It just runs in each election so that Tikkun readers can vote for something.

Now if marijuana really is a form of kitniot, it raises several questions. Can one smoke it the morning before the Seder as part of biur chametz? What about selling it to one's non-Jewish pothead friends before the holiday under a repurchase contract, to be restored to previous owners after the last day of Passover? Are such contracts kosher? We are waiting for Rabbi Cheech and Rabbi Chong to publish an authoritative opinion about that in the Tikkun Passover issue.

Tikkun readers have already suffered a great deal for their devotion to the commandment to smoke marijuana and get as stoned as the two tablets. In the Shulkhan Arukh, marijauana plants or cannabis are already prohibited for use as Succah coverage. They cannot be held together with the lulav as a sort of Fifth Kind of Fifth Min. The Orthodox establishment has failed to endorse the psak of several Tikkun Rabbis holding that smoking hashish on the sabbath is not only permitted but is downright mandatory.

The Jerusalem Post cites Dan Sieradski, an editor at JewSchool.com who has been at work on a book on Jews and drugs for several years. "Clearly, you can use hemp in food (during Pesach)," he said. "You might mix it into brownies. You aren't going to make bread out of it."

Sunday, March 25, 2007

"Progressives" Against the Exodus, by Daryl Temkin

1. In his Jerusalem Post column this past weekend, Jonathan Rosenblum, one of the Post's best columnists, wrote:

"No doubt the hatred directed at Jews and Israel wearies the soul. And even more so the piling on of so many Jews here and abroad in that hatred. Amnon Rubinstein described in Haaretz a few weeks back how the academic discourse in many Israeli humanities and social science departments takes place exclusively from Meretz leftwards. The president of one of Israel's leading universities told him there are departments in which no one espousing a Zionist worldview would be accepted."http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879149554&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

4. "Progressives" Against the ExodusMarch 20, 2007By Daryl Temkin, Ph.D.Why did Moses have to stop and take notice of that burning bush? Couldn't he havesimply walked past it and not have engaged in conversation?In a progressive view, Moses became a radical Egyptophobe who publicly denouncedthe terrible conduct of the Egyptian taskmasters, slave owners and, worse, he discreditedthe words of Pharaoh. Moses exposed Pharaoh and embarrassingly demonstrated thathe was not a "moderate". But in spite of a mountain of evidence, the progressiveview insisted that Pharaoh's political leadership was just fine. Moses' view wasmarginalized and seen as alarmist and extremist.The "progressive" slaves hated Moses' freedom campaign because they saw it as disruptiveto Egypt, and a justification for anti-Jewish protests. The progressive intellectualslaves proclaimed Moses to be a stupid stutterer who couldn't even pronounce basicwords. Although all the documents of Egypt consistently pressed for the annihilationof the Jews, the progressives argued that Pharaoh was really benign and had recognizedthe existence and rights of the Nation of Israel -- it was only for political reasonsthat Pharaoh couldn't publicly state his recognition.Two professors from the prestigious Nile University published research which indicatedsuspicion that the Israelite nation was not politically supportive of Egyptian attitudesand was organizing to achieve its own goals. Progressive slaves quickly argued infavor of continued Jewish enslavement.

The fact that Moses the radical wanted the Jews to abandon Egyptian enslavement wasa terrible affront to Egyptian taskmasters and was a reason to initiate widespreadanti-Semitism. The progressives claimed that if the Jews would only stay and cooperatewith the Egyptian plan to kill them, then hatred of the Jews would not have to bearoused.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The progressive slave position declaredthat Moses was an "imperialist expansionist" whose goal was to have the Jews leaveEgypt and become a free people in their own land. &nbsp;Leaving Egypt meant thatthe Jews were planning to conquer the entire universe. The progressives warned thatthe Jews who entered the Sinai desert would be the beginning of an unbearable occupationand would create an unsightly refugee problem of Jews living in makeshift tents fordecades. The world would be in constant fear regarding where the Jews would settleand which indigenous population would be displaced.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In the face of trying to negotiate withan administration that doesn't recognize you, Israel embarked on a unilateral decisionto leave Egypt. &nbsp;The progressives protested the decision claiming that itwas misguided, it wouldn't lead to the betterment of the Israelites, and that theEgyptians were given virtually no choice in the matter.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;By leaving Egypt, the Jews robbed theEgyptians of their slaves. &nbsp;Robbing a nation of its slaves was a human rightsviolation of the Ramsee Convention's Protection of Slave Owners' Rights. &nbsp;Atthe Nile International Court of Justice, crowds of progressives joined Egyptianschanting, "Give us back our slaves so they can serve us."&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The prosecution's legal argument statedthat the slaves couldn't leave Egypt because that would cause an enormous loss toEgyptian brutality and would basically destroy Egyptian brick production. &nbsp;Theprice of bricks would skyrocket and cause the collapse of the international brickmarket.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Progressive slaves joined the Egyptianconspiracy theory stating that the Jews knew the opening and closing times of theRed Sea and therefore planned the entrapment and destruction of Pharaoh's army. &nbsp;Furthermore,they claimed that the Israeli apartheid leaders had filled Egyptian swimming poolswith blood so that an entire generation of Egyptians couldn't learn how to swim.&nbsp;The enormous damage caused to Egypt with the loss of countless waterloggedchariots, army uniforms, drowned horses and soldiers would be the fault of the Jews.&nbsp;

Egyptian historians conducted conferences to prove that the Jews never belonged inEgypt and that they only came to steal the Egyptian land. &nbsp;Yet, the Egyptian-Goshentwo state solution was touted by progressives as being a safe and secure living conditionthat would guarantee Jewish enslavement. &nbsp;The security fence surroundingGoshen would comfort Egyptians that no slave would ever escape.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Moses realized that no matter how hardJews slaved away for the Egyptians, and no matter how many "Nile Prize" science awardsthe Jews would earn, the Egyptians would continue publishing anti-Semitic schooltextbooks. &nbsp;No matter how perfect the Jews would be, the Egyptian mediawould continue preaching that the Jews are the usurpers of the land, pariahs andblood sucker expansionists whose only interest was to rob Egypt and to push the Egyptiansinto the sea. In response to the blatant Egyptian anti-Semitism, the progressiveslaves chose to be silent and just act as if nothing was wrong.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Using magical thinking, the progressivesclaimed that eventually Egypt would recognize the Israelites and the Egyptian taskmasterswould stop killing Jews for sport. The progressives claimed that everything wouldbe fine if only&nbsp; Moses would stop his demands and the Israelites would behaveas model cooperative slaves. &nbsp;But if Moses continued to demand freedom andliberty, the Egyptians and the world would be forced to hate the Jews.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Although the progressive slaves wouldfight ferociously for other people's right to be free, when it came to themselves,it was better that they remain a no-people with no rights and no-land, and let thenations of the world decide where and what should be done with them.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Then, the progressives turned the discussionof freedom up-side-down. They claimed that Moses was the real threat to the Jews,not Pharaoh, and that Moses was the enslaver. They claimed that the world hated theJews because of Moses' plan to take the Jews beyond their borders. &nbsp;Theprogressives just wanted to be loved by those who articulated their plans to killthem.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Pharaoh preached that he wasn't anti Semitic-- after all, he was a Semite; so how could he be called anti-Semitic? &nbsp;Pharaohwas just "anti-Israel". &nbsp;He just didn't want the Jews to go off and becometheir own people in their own land. The fact that he made it legal to kill, murder,and abuse the Israelites was just a minor detail which human rights groups wouldchoose to ignore.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It is estimated that 80% of the EgyptianJews were against the Moses plan of seeking personal and religious freedom. &nbsp;Ifthere had been a democratic vote, Moses would have been defeated by a landslide,imprisoned, and likely lynched.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The 80% of the slave community who soundedso rational in their refusal to leave Egypt vanished; some say they disappeared duringthe biblical Plague of Darkness. &nbsp;Basically, they became invisible becausetheir beliefs led to the erosion and dismantling of the Jewish mission.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;How different are things today? &nbsp;Theofficial progressive position is that Israel must work at becoming loved. They areto accept Hamas and its non-recognition of Israel's existence Palestinian Unity Government.Israel is expected to make more high risk concessions and accept more security restrictions.&nbsp;As Pharaoh of old, the new "PA Unity Government pharaoh" wants the same:to make the lives of the Jews more vulnerable with very few rights to self protection,fewer rights to self-preservation, and basically a renewed enslavement.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Progressive, which means "to progress",needs to be renamed, perhaps more accurately, "recessive". &nbsp;For all whoconsider what the Jews have brought to this world to be of great value, had the so-called"progressive" ideology prevailed, the whole world would have all remained in a plagueof darkness.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Daryl Temkin is the founder and director of theIsrael Instiuteand can be contactedat: DT@Israel-Institute.com [mailto:DT@Israel-Institute.com].

Friday, March 23, 2007

Israel's Politicians Get Tough with Crime!

SO let's se if we have all of this clear. The Minister of Finance is evidently a crook who stole oodles and got caught trying to transport a quarter million dollars in evidently criminal cash out of Poland. (Caught by the Poles!) And the Israeli media and police hush it up for ten years. Not a whisper in the press. Then nary a day goes by without new information about Olmert's own criminality. The heads of the income tax administration get arrested for taking bribes. Haim Ramon gets convicted for sexual harassment but is still Olmert's choice to replace the current Minister of Finance when HE goes to prison. Ehud Barak, probably the most corrupt politician ever to head the Labor Party, is the leading contender to take it over again and has never been indicted for HIS many corrupt financial dealings. Amram Mitzna was never indicted for his dirty deals with oligarchs and just managed to hornswaggle the taxpayer into subsidizing housing in his new hangout Yeruham in enormous amounts. Half the mayors in Israel should be in prison for intentionally creating astronomical deficits that the Histadrut wants to dump on the taxpayer.

The Olmert junta is trying to suppress information on its colossal failure in the war last summer. Maariv reveals that one of the katyusha missiles Ehud Barak placed in Lebanon landed smack in the middle of the Haifa refineries and only by divine intervention did not set the place ablaze, giving off poisonous gas. And the paper says there were OTHER hits still classified.

And after ALL of that, who is actually going to jail? Poor little Naomi Blumenthal.

Who? Naomi Blumenthal was a Knesset backbencher in the Likud. Frankly I never liked her and think she is a fool. However, she is also one of the politicians in Israel LEAST deserving of being imprisoned. Her heinous crime? At a Likud primaries evening vote, she paid for some hotel rooms for party central committee voters who lived too far to go home after the vote and who cast votes for the Likud slate composition.

It is not even clear that there is anything wrong with that. So Naomi just lost her last appeal and will do prison time to create the impression in the press that Israeli politicians are intolerant of criminality and lawbreaking.

"Among the guest speakers who dropped by briefly, were Columbia U.president Lee Bollinger (an impressively thoughtful individual) and ToddGitlin (the 60s-era radical and today's prominent liberal academic)....The major distinction that was made is between those who use theApartheid analogy for 'eliminationist' or 'unconscionable' purposes -with the intend of undermining Israel;s existence as a Jewish state - andthose (like Carter) who employ the analogy for 'conscionable' reasons, toeliminate the inhumane hardships and injustices that the Palestiniansendure under occupation. The main difference of opinion seemed to be onwhether to simply refute or dismiss the Apartheid analogy or to allow thetruth of valid criticisms of Israeli policies. In the end, there wasconsensus that a good response to the Apartheid analogy can be a nuancedstatement that would contain the following elements: 'Apartheid is notthe issue' but the issue includes ending settlement expansion andoccupation on the one side and the need to end violence and terror on theother."

Israel of course is the only Middle East regime that is NOT anapartheid regime. So non-eliminationist assertions that Israelis anapartheid regime are suddenly kosher for the AJCommittee members? Maybethe AJCommittee will next claim - non-eliminationally of course - thatIsrael was behind the 911 attacks on the US? Or that Jews drink gentileblood for Passover?

Jerome Segal has long been considered by many to be one of the most anti-Israel Jews alive.Long acting as little more than a spokesman in the service of the PLO, the University of Maryland faculty member founded the pro-Palestinian "Jewish Peace Lobby," which would have better been named the Jewish self-annihilation lobby.He supported Israel turning Jerusalem over to the Palestinians.

He supported the Rwanda "bi-national state" solution to remove the problem of Israel's existence. He claims to have written a "constitution" for the state of "Palestine." He shilled for the Palestinian "right of return." He scribbled Israel-bashing screeds for The Nation.

Well, is Segal suddenly having second thoughts? Unfortunately, only in Hebrew, the very same Israel-bashing fella writes in YNET that there is no international legal justification for a Palestinian "right of return." Segal suddenly insists that there is no legal basis for it at all and that it is a stupid and harmful idea, adding that the only way to settle past scores is through compensation for losses of property.

First Benny Morris partly recants his old anti-Zionism, and now Mister Jewish Intifada follows in Morris's footsteps? I'd like to be the first to welcome Segal back to the Planet Earth.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus -- ExplainedMarch 22, 2007In a better world, the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" would take its place inthe library of eternal mysteries alongside "Bye-bye Miss American Pie," "IAm the Walrus" and "It's Alright, Ma, I'm Only Bleeding." Instead, it fellMonday to the Nine Interpreters of the U.S. Supreme Court to deconstruct"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and decide for the rest of us whether it falls insidethe protections of the American Constitution.

Perhaps an explanation is in order.

Morse v. Fredericks, aka Bong Hits 4 Jesus, is a First Amendmentfree-speech case. The phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" came to life as a 15-footbanner, which Joseph Fredericks, a senior at the high school in Juneau,Alaska, unfurled directly across from the school entrance as a paradepassed by bearing the Olympic torch for the 2002 Olympics. Whereupon, theschool's principal, Deborah Morse, ordered Mr. Fredericks to take down hisbanner and later suspended him.

Some definitions: As defined by the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, "Abong, also commonly known as a water pipe, is a smoking device, generallyused to smoke cannabis [aka marijuana], but also other substances." Theentry also explains a "hit." "The user places his/her lips on the mouthpiece, forming a seal, and inhales. An inhalation is known as a 'hit'."(For the still curious, the Wikipedia entry is long and lovingly prepared,with beautiful color photos of bongs and explanations of "bong water" and"health benefits.")

Principal Morse, who had had other run-ins with Mr. Fredericks, believedhis sign was undermining the school system's anti-drug policy, and so tookaction. Within months, Mr. Fredericks sued, assisted by the Alaska CivilLiberties Union, claiming violation of his free-speech rights.

Some history: Lawsuits over the free-speech rights of schoolchildren existbecause the Supreme Court legitimized them in 1969. Several years earlier,a 13-year-old girl and 15-year-old boy decided to wear black armbands totheir schools in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the Vietnam War. The schoolshad a policy against wearing symbolic armbands at school and warned they'dbe suspended. They showed up with the anti-Vietnam armbands, weresuspended and in what today is the landmark Tinker case for school"speech," Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that students do not "shedtheir constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at theschoolhouse gate."

Two later cases, Fraser and Kuhlmeier, refined Tinker's scope, which we'llsee shortly is the background to one of the most hilarious -- andrevealing -- exchanges at oral argument ever in a school free-speech case.

In the years since, school officials and lower courts have struggled withTinker. The Massachusetts Supreme Court said a T-shirt, "Coed Naked Band:Do It to the Rhythm," was protected speech. But schools in several stateshave banned a T-shirt with "Abortion is Homicide. You will not mock myGod." (Religious groups filed amicus briefs for the Juneau "bong" bannerbecause they want similar protections to wear anti-abortion shirts and thelike.) A federal appeals court in California said schools could ban aT-shirt calling homosexuality shameful because it was "injurious to gayand lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn." But afederal court in Ohio conferred constitutional protection on a shirt with:"Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!" All thesecases involve public schools.

There are legal blogs on the Web which try to predict Supreme Courtrulings. Many say the result in the "Bong" case is a close call.

Should we care? Are we past caring?

Here is Chief Justice Roberts Monday on applying the First Amendment inJuneau: "You think the law was so clearly established when this happenedthat the principal, that the instant that the banner was unfurled,snowballs are flying around, the torch is coming, should have said oh, Iremember under Tinker I can only take the sign down if it's disruptive.But then under Fraser I can do something if it interferes with the basicmission, and under Kuhlmeier I've got this other thing. So she should haveknown . . ."

The lawyer for "Bong" replied that the principal took a course in schoollaw and so had studied Kuhlmeier, Fraser and Tinker. Chief Justice Robertsreplied: "So it should be perfectly clear to her exactly what she couldand couldn't do." The lawyer: "Yes." Justice Scalia: "As it is to us,right?" (Laughter in the court.)

The Nine Interpreters know that Tinker has produced a morass since 1969.Justice Roberts said, "I thought we wanted our schools to teachsomething." A school isn't an "open forum," remarked Justice Scalia, "it'sthere for the teachers to instruct." Justice Ginsburg wondered about"reasonable rules of decorum." Justice Breyer ridiculed case-law standardsin these fights: "I don't think [the principal] has to be able to readcontent discrimination, viewpoint discrimination, time-place. He doesn'tknow the law, the principal. His job is to run the school."

Well, it used to be.

We live in hyperpoliticized times. With the Web drawing ever-greaternumbers into the daily game, no political offense is too slight to raisewaves of high dudgeon. And they roll into the schools. Justice Breyerworries about "people testing limits all over the place in the highschools." I worry about dumbing down the schools to the current level ofpolitics in the adult world.

Rather than just fiddle with the dials on the school-speech contraption,the solution would be to take Tinker and throw it out the window. But theywon't. They'll tinker, telling us what to do, but unable to give coherentreasons why we should do it.

The pious extension of First Amendment speech rights amid Vietnam fromadults to students prior to college was a mistake. The Bong case may beanother nail in the coffin of public schools. Parents, including liberalswho can afford it, will quicken the trend to sending their children toprivate schools whose principals can exercise real discretion and in locoparentis.

One argument for the say-it-loud status quo is that kids should be free inschool to learn how "to deal" with different viewpoints. I'd bet all nineJustices went to high schools with principals who put learning first andTinkered "speech" in its place. It doesn't seem to have stopped them fromgrowing up to drive people nuts with their opinions.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Setting the Record Staright! The Spokeswoman for Ben Gurion University Lied!

Since controversy has arisen about just what the President of Ben Gurion University did or did not say in her controversial interview about donors to her own school and about her own politics, we decided to set the record straight. Here are the exact words of Prof. Rivka Carmi from the interview in the relevant segments thereof. They are quite different from what the spokeswoman for BGU claimed in a letter to the Jewish Press.

The interview with Carmi appears in "Academia". Winter 2007. Academia is usually posted on this web site in Hebrew: however the web site is about a year in arrears and the current issue is not up there yet.

The Carmi interview is entitled "That's Right, I am a Big Dreamer", and stretches over several pages, starting page 34 and ending page 40. The article and interview are by Judy Lutz (I do not know much about her).

Much of the interview is not political nor controversial, and because it is so long, I am skipping non-relevant sections.

Near the beginning, Carmi is asked by Lutz: "Would you like to see students demonstrating on other issues (besides tuition)?" Carmi's response cited by Lutz: "Absolutely. Especially on social issues. And that is one of the reasons why I went out to them to the protest to greet and commend them. Because in my opinion now is the time to address social issues."

Lutz: "And if they had been standing there and chanting "End the Occupation/Conquest (Kibush in Hebrew), would you have gone out to greet them?"

Lutz writes that after a pause Carmi responds, "I believe so. Especially on THAT issue I would have trouble NOT going out to commend the students. You ask me what I would do if there was a protest in favor of something I oppose ideologically? I believe that I would NOT go out to greet the protesters. Those are the limits I set for myself. Not to lie to myself and shake hands with those with whom I disagree."

A few lines later, Lutz writes, "Carmi grew up in a socialist home and she remained loyal to the socialist ideology that she picked up in her youth and she answers candidly all questions that have political implications. She is cautious in her words but uncompromising. Her personal truth is important to her."

That is followed by about 2 pages about her election as BGU CEO and the fiscal situation at BGU. Then on page 36 Lutz asks her, "Lately there has been in the air the threat of a boycott on academic institutions of higher learning in Israel. Can you imagine circumstances under which you would endorse such boycotts of any institution?"

Carmi: "Only if I were to observe some crime within the academic club. I have considered this question and read the book 'Reading Lolita in Tehran', in which the author describes the terrible things that go on within the walls of academia, kidnappings, disappearances, and so on. If I were to have first-hand testimony about such things going on in any academic institution I would endorse a boycott, but only if there were real crimes and not just rumors."

Lutz: "And those periodic attempts in England to boycott Israeli universities are unacceptable for you?"

Carmi: "Of course. They involve no academic nor scientific thinking. I expect academics to pursue truth but what they are doing is superficial and populist."

Lutz: "Maybe that just expresses disappointment with Israeli academics. In a different interview you said that academics well earned their reputation for being inferior."

Carmi: "Not inferior but for being a closed ivory tower cut off from reality…"

A bit lower down, Lutz asks: "Universities are places in which people of spirit and culture develop for our future, and who - if not the academics - need to express an opinion about issues with universalist values such as the tearing out of olive trees belonging to Palestinians by settlers or the killing of children."(Note, these are common and false smears against 'settlers' by the Israeli leftist media. -- SP)

Carmi: "To my regret even universal values today have political meaning. Every value that I considered absolute as a youth turns into, 'It all depends on how you look at it.' Recently I myself participated in a protest against the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees, but now.... (stops in mid sentence)."(Note she did not mention going to any protests against terrorists murdering Jews – SP)

Lutz: "And if they were to write that the President of Ben Gurion University went out to protest against uprooting olive trees, what would then happen?"

Carmi: "The point is that as a university president you are not a private person and must be balanced."

Lutz: "And if a professor of literature were to express his opinion on this issue and gets a headline?"

Carmi: "Such things have already transpired. Medical doctors from here (BGU) went to the 'occupied territories' during difficult times to help Palestinian patients."

Lutz: "And how would you react to that as university president if your response were requested? Would you call them (the radical faculty) to order, encourage them, or ignore them?"

Carmi: "The problem is the image that could be created for the university by the behavior of individuals. Extremist behavior causes an image of extremism to attach to the university. There are sometimes terrible pressures on the university from donors. I raise here the issue of ethics and donations. Unfortunately we are all dependent on donations. So ask me how far donors should be allowed to go in dictating the university's agenda!" (emphasis added)

Lutz: "Ok, I am asking."

Carmi: "One needs to tiptoe as if among glass shards. I thought a lot about the question of where my red line is and where I would simply tell a donor - thank you very much I am foregoing your contribution."

Lutz: "You mean by threatening not to make a donation a donor can dictate the limits of academic freedom?"

Carmi: "Unfortunately there is that possibility. I do not know how often such things really happened but the danger is there and anyone who says it is not is simply lying. I do not want to say that we are confronted by this every day. Thank God, the statistics show that most people are in the center (politically? -- SP). Once they get explanations from us they usually understand that we are talking about legitimate academic discourse. But in extremist cases could a donor find our explanations unconvincing and condition his donation?" (Implying the answer is yes)

(The next topic of the interview is the public debate in Israel over whether to grant the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel status as a university. Carmi explains why she is opposed. More hypocrisy over pluralism? The rest of the interview is about other topics. The only other political matter is where Carmi expresses opposition to conducting special university programs for police officers and Shin Bet intelligence officers, an issue that has been a matter of debate in Israel, with the Left opposed to the programs.)

Spokeswoman for Ben Gurion University in the US turns to McCarthyist Lies

So let us see if we have this straight. Ben Gurion University's newpresident shoots off her mouth in an interview and makes derogatorycomments about donors to her own university. That triggers roars ofoutrage around the world. The head of the American Associates of BenGurion University then decides that **I** am responsible for the wholeaffair, and that there are no faculty at BGU who are calling for Israel tobe destroyed, that non-leftist Jews in the US have no right to expresstheir opinions (especially not if they are associated with the ZionistStandWithUs group), unlike leftist Jews in the US like the one servingas the head of the "American Associates of Ben Gurion University" (whoevidently does not know Hebrew). What am I talking about? See thebottom 3 letters athttp://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/21054/Letters_To_The_Editor.htmlNote her gratuitous comments about that mysterious "BGU slandererconvicted of libel in Israel."

What triggered that outburst from her is this article by Allyson RowenTaylor:

-Prof. I. Barr,Michigan, USA.We were informed that Tanya Reinhardt died in her sleep in her apartmentin New York. She was called a "linguist" expert in syntax and probablysome other linguistic issues. She was called also a "peace activist."Linguistically the words "peace activist" have the positive connotationthat a peace activist is not only a good person but that he/she is betterthan most of us because this person is active. Most of us want peace. Goto anybody in Israel or West Bank and even in Gaza and you find a majoritythat wants peace. To be an activist you have to show the world that youare doing something, to demonstrate your feelings. Those who are ingovernment or institution can plan steps that promote peace, a road map, aseries of agreements and alike. The plan for peace is known in advance andthus may or may not be supported by the interested parties. An agreementbetween two different groups of citizens should be an agreement that islocal and not dictated by outside institutions or countries. Heads ofstate and their cabinet as rulers who have to come up with decisions andare responsible to their consequences. "Peace activists" want their voicesto be heard. They do not necessarily have a comprehensive plan for peace.They quickly understand that the louder they scream, the more extreme theyare, their voices are more likely to be heard. To say that you are forpeace is not enough. Most of us are such. But it is the psychology of "manbites a dog" which makes news. The more extreme are the allegations themore "peace activist" you are. So you wave the flag that you are Jewishand than you say that you are Israeli too. You get some audience. But thenyou have to come with more statements, Israeli are racist, do ethniccleansing, kill Arabs, occupation, Apartheid state, paria state and "worsethan the Nazi" and now you have a stronger title than your professorship:You are an internationally renowned "peace activist." At this stage therenowned does not have to come with a comprehensive peace plan. You trashthe Oslo peace accords and every agreements that were made between Israeland the Palestinians. You blame Israel for war crimes while developing atunnel vision: you look only at Israel and it's deed. Every deed isinherently bad, but the Palestinians never ever do anything wrong. Thereis no mention of homicide bombing in Tanya Reinhardt book. It simply didnot happen. If Israeli civilians are killed it must have been done by IDFitself to justify the "occupation." Indeed, many doors were opened for herin the anti Israel anti-Semitic arena. The Palestinian media and activistsaccepted her with open hands and probably were one of those who financedher. But where is her peace plan if she is a "peace activist"? Reinhardtclaimed free speech, yet free speech is a privilege that has to followcertain rules otherwise it is not free speech but a fascist dictate. Freespeech has to be fair, balanced and accurate. Otherwise free speechbecomes demagoguery. Free speech which criticizes has to allow to becriticized. She published articles in Counterpunch knowing that this antiIsrael journal does not accept criticism and thus you can load yourarticles with falsehoods, misrepresentations, exaggerations and straightforward lies. You can ignore the Palestinians, Hamas, Hizballah, IslamicJihad and alike as if Israel exists in a vacuum. While doing so Reinhardtdid not carry any responsibility, she was not fair and was far from beingbalanced. Her peaceful activism turned into bitter hate. Now Israel has tobe boycotted at any level, commerce, academia, culture and alike. This shethought "peacefully" will force Israel to accept her theory that Israel isillegitimate. Thus it came to the fact that the University and CollegeLecturers' Union (NATFHE) voted for a motion to boycott Israeli academicswho do not condemn Israel's "Apartheid policies." Reinhardt was, ofcourse, accepted with open hands. Academic freedom, freedom of speech fromwhich Tanya was nourished did not matter. She was spitting into the wellfrom which she was drinking water. Tanya Reinhart did not leave behind anysignificant linguistic research material, but she left behind tones of herpapers and lectures against Israel and by inference the Jews. One wonderswhen did she have time to teach, to fulfill her duties at the Universityof Tel Aviv, a duty for which she was paid. What did she really teach? Wasshe indoctrinating her students? Was she able to separate her politicalworld from her academic duties? It seems that in reality she did notadvocate peace and coexistence between Palestinians and Israeli. Rathershe did what ever she could to widen the gap and to delegitimize Israel,to prefer Arab domination over Jewish right to exist. Tanya Reinhardt doesnot deserve the title "peace activist." We only hope that she will notbecome the Shahid of the radical left academics who are trying to followher steps.

4. From the WSJ:March 21, 2007

KSM's ConfessionBy EDWARD JAY EPSTEINMarch 21, 2007; Page A19

Last week Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) admitted to having been responsiblefor planning no fewer than 28 acts of terrorism, including the horrificSeptember 11 attacks, from "A to Z." The sensational confession, madeduring a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, raises a number of seriousquestions -- most pointedly about the decision of the 9/11 Commission torely on the CIA for information about this terrorist leader, who wascaptured in 2003.

Although the 9/11 Commission identified KSM as a key witness in the WorldTrade Center and Pentagon, it never was allowed to question him or his CIAinterrogators. Instead, the staff received briefings from a CIA "projectmanager" -- who was himself briefed by other CIA case officers on what KSMhad putatively revealed during his interrogation. As the 9/11 Commissionchairmen noted, this was "third-hand" information; but it allowed the CIAto fill in critical gaps in the commission's investigation. Now KSM'sclaims throw this reliance on the CIA into question.

Consider the Feb. 26, 1993, attack on the north tower of the World TradeCenter. A 1,500 pound truck bomb was exploded by Islamist terrorists,intending to topple the building. Over 1,000 people were injured, andeventually five of the perpetrators, including the bomb-builder, RamziYousef, were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Yousef is a relative of KSM, and was involved with him in a subsequentplot to blow up U.S. airliners. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commissionconcluded that KSM had played at most a "cameo role" in the 1993 attack,limited to providing Yousef with $600 and having a few phone conversationswith him. And it based this conclusion largely on the CIA briefings ofwhat KSM had said during his interrogation.

According to the CIA, for example, KSM had maintained that "Yousef neverdivulged to him the target of the attack." The 1993 WTC bombing,therefore, appeared unrelated to the 9/11 attack -- and so the 9/11Commission had no need to investigate it, or the conspirators involved init.

In his confession, however, KSM says that he was responsible for the WTCbombing. If so, both it and 9/11 are the work of the same mastermind --and the planning, financing and support network that KSM used in the 1993attack may be relevant to the 9/11 attack. Of especial interest are theescape routes used by Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef, both of whomhelped prepare the bomb and then fled America.

Yasin (who is not even mentioned in the 9/11 report) came to the U.S. fromIraq in 1992, at about the same time as Yousef, and then returned to Iraqvia Jordan. Despite being indicted for the World Trade Center bombing, andput on the FBI's list of the most-wanted terrorist fugitives with a $5million price on his head (increased to $25 million after 9/11), Iraqiauthorities allowed Yasin to remain in Baghdad for 10 years (In 2003,after the U.S. invasion, he disappeared.)

His co-conspirator Yousef, who entered the U.S. under an alias on an Iraqipassport (switching passports to his Pakistani identity), escaped afterthe 1993 WTC bombing to Pakistan, where, after being involved in anotherbombing plot with KSM, he was arrested and is currently in a U.S. prison.But if indeed KSM had been behind the 1993 bombing -- and the 9/11Commission had not been told the opposite by the CIA -- the question ofwhat support KSM had in recruiting the conspirators and organizing theescape routes of the bomb makers would have become a far more pressinginvestigative issue for the commission.

Of course, KSM's credibility is a very big "if." He might have lied in hisconfession about his role in the 1993 WTC bombing; he might have lied tohis CIA captors (which itself would say something about the effectivenessof their aggressive interrogation); or, in selecting bits and pieces outof their full context, the CIA project officer may have accidentallymis-briefed the 9/11 Commission staff.

But at the root of the problem is the failure of the commission itself toquestion KSM. This was not for lack of trying. The commission chairmenfully recognized the need to gain access to the author of 9/11, and tooknote that their staff was becoming "frustrated" at their inability to getinformation from KSM and other detainees. On Dec. 22, 2003 -- with lessthan seven months remaining before they had to deliver their report --they brought the problem up with George Tenet, then CIA director. He toldthem, point blank, "You are not going to get access to these detainees."

The commission considered using its subpoena power, but was advised by itsgeneral counsel that since KSM was being held in a secret prison onforeign soil, it was unlikely that any court would enforce a subpoena. Thecommission also decided against taking the issue public, believing itcould not win in a battle with the administration, at least in the time ithad left. So, lacking any viable alternatives, it allowed the CIA tocontrol the information it needed from KSM and other detainees.

The result is that basic issues concerning KSM's interrogation -- and thedozens of crucial citations in the 9/11 Report -- are now in such doubtthat 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey suggested last Sunday, in his Daily Newscolumn, that KSM be put on trial in New York, where presumably he could beproperly cross-examined. While that remedy may be far-fetched, someresolution of this investigative failure is necessary.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Tyran-a-Soros

1. THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE.Tyran-a-Sorosby Martin Peretz - The New RepublicPost date: 02.02.07Issue date: 02.12.07

George Soros lunched with some reporters on Saturday at Davos. He talkedabout spending $600 million on civil society projects during the 1990s,then trying to cut back to $300 million, and how this year it will bebetween $450 and $500 million. His new projects aim, in Floyd Norris'swords, to promote a "common European foreign policy" (read: ananti-American foreign policy) and also to study the integration (or so hethinks) of Muslims in eleven European cities. He included among his dictaa little slight at Bill and Melinda Gates, who "have chosen public health,which is like apple pie." And then, after saying the United States was nowrecognizing the errors it made in Iraq, he added this comment, as reportedby Norris in The New York Times' online "Davos Diary": "To what extent itrecognizes the mistake will determine its future." Soros said Turkey andJapan were still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of theirhistory and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of itsNazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced inGermany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process."

No, you are not seeing things. He said de-Nazification. He is not saying,in the traditional manner of liberal alarmists, that the United States isnow where Weimar Germany was. He is saying that the United States is nowwhere Germany after Weimar was. Even for Davos, this was stupid. Actually,worse than stupid. There is a historical analysis, a moral claim, inSoros's word. He believes that the United States is now a Nazi country.Why else would we have to go through a "certain de-Nazification process"?I defy anybody to interpret the remark differently. The analogy betweenBush's America and Hitler's Germany is not fleshed out, and one is leftwondering how far he would take it. Is Bush like Hitler? If it is"de-Nazification" that we need, then in some sense Bush must be likeHitler. Was the invasion of Iraq like the invasion of Poland? Perhaps. Themore one lingers over Soros's word, the more one's eyes pop from one'shead. In the old days, the Amerika view of America was propagated by angrykids on their painful way to adulthood; now, it is propagated by theMaecenas of the Democratic Party.

But nobody seems to have noticed. I did not see Soros's canard reported inother places, and on the Times' website on the day I saw it there wereonly four comments. Imagine the outcry if a Republican moneybags--say,Richard Mellon Scaife--had declared that Hillary Clinton is a communist orthat Bill Clinton's America had been in need of a certain de-Stalinizationprocess. But I hear no outcry from Soros's congregation. People who wererepelled by Bush's rather plausible notion of the "axis of evil" seemuntroubled by Soros's imputation of even worse evil to Bush. Because Bushreally is a fascist, isn't he? And Cheney, too; and Donald Rumsfeld, andAntonin Scalia, and even Joe Lieberman, right? Or so I fear too manyliberals now believe. There seems to be a renaissance among liberals ofthe view that there are no enemies to the left. I hear no Democratsexpressing embarrassment, or revulsion, at Soros's comment. Whether thissilence is owed to their agreement or to their greed, it is outrageous.

But if Soros lives in a Nazi state, what does that make him? I stillrecall Karl Jaspers's devastating point, in The Question of German Guiltin 1947, that every German shares in the guilt of Hitlerism. Such guiltwas not, in Jaspers's mind, an abstraction or a purely political matter.But Soros does not appear to accept any responsibility for the Nazi-likecrimes he ascribes to the United States. Perhaps he thinks that, havingcontributed $18 million to elect John Kerry in 2004, he was an Americanhero, a dissident, a resistance fighter, the Grill Room's representativeof the White Rose. And if, in 2008, Soros's gang comes to power, how willde-Nazification work? Whom shall we send to prison? Perhaps we shouldprevent everybody who voted or argued for the war from running for office.At the very least, the neocons must be brought to justice. (Maybe RamseyClark can represent them.)

hat makes Soros's remark even more twisted is that he himself experiencedsomething of Nazism. He was 14 when the Nazis entered Budapest. OnDecember 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and SteveKroft on "60 Minutes":

Kroft: "You're a Hungarian Jew ..."Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... who escaped the Holocaust ..."

Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... by posing as a Christian."

Soros: "Right."

Kroft: "And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the deathcamps."Soros: "Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when mycharacter was made."

Kroft: "In what way?"

Soros: "That one should think ahead. One should understand that--andanticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendousthreat of evil. I mean, it was a-- a very personal threat of evil."

Kroft: "My understanding is that you went ... went out, in fact, andhelped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."

Soros: "Yes, that's right. Yes."

Kroft: "I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would sendlots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was itdifficult?"

Soros: "Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't ... youdon't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all."

Kroft: "No feeling of guilt?"

Soros: "No."

Kroft: "For example, that, 'I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching thesepeople go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.' None ofthat?"

Soros: "Well, of course, ... I could be on the other side or I could bethe one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sensethat I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funnyway, it's just like in the markets--that is I weren't there--of course, Iwasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it awayanyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only aspectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role intaking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."So this is the psychodrama that has been visited on American liberalism.We learn Soros never has nightmares. Had he been tried in ade-Nazification process for having been a young cog in the Hitleritewheel, he would have felt that, since other people would have confiscatedthe same Jewish property and delivered the same deportation notices to thesame doomed Jews, it was as if he hadn't done it himself. He sleeps well,while we sleep in Nazi America.

oros is ostentatiously indifferent to his own Jewishness. He is not abeliever. He has no Jewish communal ties. He certainly isn't a Zionist. Hetold Connie Bruck in The New Yorker--testily, she recounted--that "I don'tdeny the Jews their right to a national existence--but I don't want to bepart of it." But he has involved himself in the founding of an anti-aipac,more dovish Israel lobby. Suddenly, he wants to influence the character ofa Jewish state about which he loudly cares nothing. Once again, he bearsno responsibility. Perhaps his sense of his own purity also underwriteshis heartlessness in business. As a big currency player in the worldmarkets, Soros was at least partially responsible for the decline in theBritish pound.

Forget my differences with Soros's Jewishness. Call it shul politics. Butthe characterization of the United States under Bush as Nazi is muchbigger, and more grave, than shul politics. It casts a shadow over U.S.politics. In the same conversation at Davos, Soros announced that he issupporting Senator Barack Obama, though he would also support SenatorHillary Clinton. So my question to both of those progressives is this:How, without any explanation or apology from him, will you take this man'smoney?

Since at least the Middle Ages, the approach of Easter has been markedbyanti-Semites who make the false allegation that Jews slaughter gentilechildren and use their blood to bake unleavened bread for Passover.Thisalleged bloodthirst among the Jews is a classic anti-Semitic myth,known asthe blood libel, that has been used over the years to justify theactualkilling of many actual Jews.

This holiday season, a new blood libel is being bandied about, thoughthosewielding it would be appalled to think they are dealing in the samehatreds.They are, after all, neither Cossacks nor rednecks marauding throughthewoods of Eastern Europe or the American South. We are not saying theyareanti-Semites. They are a two-time Pulitzer-Prize winner and abillionairephilanthropist, writing in publications that appeal to an intellectualaudience in America.

Here's the two-time Pulitzer-winner, Nicholas Kristof, in yesterday'sNewYork Times: "B'Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights organization,reports that last year Palestinians killed17 Israeli civilians (including one minor) and six Israeli soldiers. Inthesame period, B'Tselem said, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians,triplethe number killed in 2005. Of the Palestinians killed in 2006, halfwere nottaking part in hostilities at the time they were killed, and 141 wereminors."

Here is the billionaire philanthropist, George Soros, writing in theNewYork Review of Books of April 12: "The current policy of not seeking apolitical solution but pursuing military escalation - not just an eyefor aneye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one -hasreached a particularly dangerous point."

Aside from the fact that Israel was being attacked by the Palestiniansafterwithdrawing to the 1967 borders of the Gaza Strip, here's some contextthatMr. Kristof left out. B'Tselem is funded by German church groups, thegovernments of Switzerland and the European Union, and the same FordFoundation that underwrote the anti-Israel agitation that preceded theUnited Nations' Durban conference.

Moreover, the statistics Mr. Kristof cites don't include Israeliskilled byother Arab terrorists working in league with the Palestinian Arabs andfunded by the same Iranian terror master. In 2006, that included 43Israelicivilians and 117 Israeli soldiers who were killed in the war withLebanese-based Hezbollah. The B'Tselem statistics do include - but Mr.Kristof omits - the 55 Palestinian Arabs killed in 2006 by otherPalestinianArabs, a figure to which can be added another 84 killed in intramuralviolence in January and February of 2007.

For these deaths, it seems Mr. Kristof hasn't yet figured out how toblamethe Israelis. Nor does Mr. Kristof's selective use of the B'Tselemstatistics include the Americans and those from other countries whowerekilled by Palestinian Arab terrorists, such as Daniel Wultz, a16-year-oldfrom Florida who was slain in a 2006 suicide attack on the old centralbusstation in Tel Aviv.

More broadly, both Messrs. Soros and Kristof ignore an essentialdifference.The Israelis are out to minimize both their own casualties and those ofthenoncombatants behind whom their enemies hide. They build bomb sheltersintoevery building and have established a culture where civil rightsgroups,independent commissions, and a Supreme Court investigate allegations ofmisconduct beyond the collateral damage that is an inevitableconsequence ofany war.

The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, are out to maximize casualties,trainingtheir children as suicide bombers in hopes that they will become"martyrs,"so that gullible Westerners who haven't thought the matter through willusetheir deaths to extract concessions from Israel. The Palestinian Arabsattack Israeli civilian targets such as pizza parlors, banquet halls,wedding parties, and buses as a matter of policy, while the Israeliarmygoes to great lengths to avoid targeting civilians.

***

Given Mr. Soros' significance as the moneybags of the activist core oftheDemocratic Party, it is going to be illuminating to see how the partyreactsto the billionaire's call for the party to "liberate itself fromAIPAC'sinfluence." In his New York Review of Books piece Mr. Soros comesawfullyclose to buying into the whole paranoia of Professors Mearsheimer andWalt.

Mr. Soros, who describes himself in the New York Review of Books asneithera Zionist nor "a practicing Jew," claims to have a great deal ofsympathy"for my fellow Jews" plus "a deep concern for the survival of Israel."Hesays he is prepared to be subjected to "a campaign of personalvilification." We don't desire to vilify either Messrs. Soros orKristof,nor do we draw any conclusions about their motives. At a certain point,though, people stop caring about what their motives are.

The fact is that they write at a time when a war against the Jews isunderway. It is a war in which the American people have stood withIsraelfor three generations. The reason is the same that moved America totake theside it took in the war against the Nazis and communists, from whom Mr.Soros fled as a youth in Europe. The reason is that Americans are wiseenough to understand which side in the war against the Jews shares ourvalues - and to sort out the truth from the libels.

Even before the Palestinian "unity" government was sworn in Saturday atleast five European countries announced that they would resume theirbusiness with the Hamas-led coalition.

The U.S. has endorsed Israel's position on the Palestinian government --namely, that its political platform does not meet the conditions set bythe so-called "Quartet" of the U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia for ending theboycott. Washington is now under heavy pressure from its Arab allies inthe Middle East to deal with it.

Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh.But the U.S. should stand firm. The Palestinian government is notcommitted to the Quartet's demands that it renounce violence, recognizeIsrael and abide by agreements signed with Israel in the past. Thespeeches delivered by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his newHamas partner, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, at Saturday's parliamentarysession show that the Palestinians are determined instead to continuetheir strategy of double-talk.

Neither the president nor the prime minister openly called for an end toterrorism or for recognizing Israel's right to exist. And to add to theconfusion, the two men came up with a political program that contains manycontradictions and ambiguities.

The wording of the program was drafted in such a way as to allow bothHamas and Fatah to argue that neither party had totally abandoned itstraditional position. The equivocal tone is also designed to appease theAmericans and Europeans. After all, the main goal of the new coalition isto get the international community to resume desperately needed financialaid.

With regard to the three main demands of the Quartet, the program leavesthe door wide open for different interpretations.

On the issue of terrorism, the program states that the new government"stresses that resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people. . . and our people have the right to defend themselves against anyIsraeli aggression." But the program also says that the new governmentwill "work toward consolidating the tahdiya [period of calm] and extendingit [to the West Bank] so that it becomes a comprehensive and mutualtruce."

The program sets a number of conditions for halting the "resistance" --ending the "occupation" and achieving independence and the right of returnfor Palestinian refugees, as well as an end to Israeli security measuresin the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including the construction of thesecurity fence). In other words, Fatah and Hamas are saying that theviolence will continue as long as Israel does not meet these demands.

Regarding Israel's right to exist, the program does not even mention thename Israel. Instead, it refers to Israel as "The Occupation." It alsomakes no mention of the two-state solution. Rather, it reiterates thePalestinians' opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state withtemporary borders.

Although the document declares that the "key to peace and stability iscontingent on ending the occupation of Palestinian lands and recognizingthe Palestinian people's right to self-determination," it does not specifywhich "lands" -- those captured by Israel in 1967 or 1948.

Fatah representatives, of course, argue that the program refers only tothe West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Hamas, on the other hand,will be able to argue that the phrase "Palestinian lands" applies also toall of Mandatory Palestine.

Referring to the third demand of the Quartet -- abiding by agreementsbetween the PLO and Israel -- the political program states that the newgovernment will only "respect" agreements signed by the PLO.

Hamas leaders have already explained that there is a huge differencebetween "respecting" an agreement and making a pledge to fulfill it. Inother words, Hamas is saying that while it accepts the agreements withIsrael as an established fact, it will not carry them out.

Elsewhere in the program, the new government says that it will abide byunspecified U.N. and Arab summit resolutions, leaving the door open forFatah to claim that this is tantamount to recognizing the two-statesolution and all the agreements with Israel. Fatah will cite the 2002 Arabpeace plan that implicitly recognizes Israel.

Hamas, on the other hand, can always claim that among the Arab summitresolutions that it intends to abide by is the one taken in Khartoum,Sudan, in September 1967. The resolution contains what became known as"the three no's" of Arab-Israel relations: no peace with Israel, norecognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Although the program makes it clear that the PLO, and not the newHamas-led coalition, will be responsible for conducting negotiations withIsrael, it also seeks to tie the hands of President Abbas by stating thatany "fateful" agreement must be approved by the Palestinians in thePA-controlled areas and abroad through a referendum.

The program, moreover, closes the door to any potential concessions on theproblem of the refugees by emphasizing their "right of return to theirlands and property [inside Israel]."

The international community must demand an end to the era of ambiguity anddouble-talk. If the new government is opposed to terror, there is noreason why it should not state this loudly and clearly.

If it recognizes Israel -- as some of its members claim -- then why notannounce this in unequivocal language? The international community mustinsist that the messages coming out of the Palestinian leaders be the samein both English and Arabic.

There is no point in pouring millions of dollars on the "unity" governmentas long as it's not prepared to make a clear and firm commitment to haltterror and recognize Israel's right to exist.